[HN Gopher] Physicists are building neural networks out of vibra... ___________________________________________________________________ Physicists are building neural networks out of vibrations, voltages and lasers Author : pseudolus Score : 237 points Date : 2022-06-01 10:02 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org) | cpdean wrote: | After-all, we tricked sand into thinking for us so it makes sense | that certain applications could run on other mediums. | reality_inspctr wrote: | but what does the universe think of us? | | --my friend on signal | schmeckleberg wrote: | well, we haven't been gamma ray burst'd yet. _sheepish thumbs | up_ | reality_inspctr wrote: | Bob Moog - who (basically) invented the synthesizer - was a | passionate organic gardener. His belief system, in many ways, saw | the two as similarly allowing humans to interface with the | intelligence of the universe. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | > saw the two as similarly allowing | | I love bob moog, so can you explain this a little further? How | is gardening a way to interface with the intelligence of the | universe? | kingkawn wrote: | makes ya wonder what sorts of computing was done by the ancients | with the natural materials they had available. | photochemsyn wrote: | Reads like science fiction becoming reality. In particular, the | science fiction series by Hannu Rajaniemi (Quantum Thief, Fractal | Prince, Causal Angel) has 'natural computational substrates' as | one of its themes. | | This all seems to exist on the borderland between discrete and | continuous mathematics, which is a pretty fascinating topic. | Digital systems rely on discrete mathematics, while things like | fluid dynamics are much more in the world of continuous smooth | functions. It seems as if they're really building an interface | between the two concepts. | alach11 wrote: | Indeed. This is straight out of Permutation City by Greg Egan. | dane-pgp wrote: | I'm reminded of the Church-Turing-Deutsch principle[0] which | states that a universal computing device can simulate every | physical process. | | Putting that another way, I think it means that anything that | can happen in the universe can be modelled by sets of equations | (which we might not have yet) which can be calculated on a | universal Turing machine. | | There is the question of what can quantum computers do | polynomially or exponentially faster than a classical computer, | but I think it's accepted that all quantum computations can be | achieved classically if you don't mind waiting. | | [0] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing%E2%80%93... | RappingBoomer wrote: | the art and science of measurement is still quite an obstacle for | us today... | Agamus wrote: | Data science is exposing the limits of the paradigm of | individuation, on which mathematics is based. It is a flawed | simulacrum of a fluxing universe which never stops changing, | never solidifies into a value, a digit, an individual thing. | | Mathematics as a reflection of reality presumes that there is a | pause button on the universe. This also explains why philosophy | has made no substantial progress in the past few thousand years | - it makes the same assumption in the idea of 'being', which is | an impossibility for the same reason. | mhh__ wrote: | I think data science suffers that more than mathematics | does... | Agamus wrote: | In my mind, mathematics assumes that things do not change | by saying that anything stays static for long enough to be | called a "one thing". | | The philosophical basis of the concept of "one" is flawed, | in my mind. As such, the rest of it is a self-referential | invention, much like logic. While the universe seems very | much like it is written in the language of mathematics, it | is not. | | On the same note, the metaphysical idea of 'being' makes | the same mistake, which explains why two thousand+ years of | metaphysics has been mostly spinning tires. | | I think the research in this story is on to something. | meroes wrote: | What about something which changes is always equal to | itself? Or experience is real. Static statements. Curious | how you'd deny these kinds of things. | zmgsabst wrote: | > Mathematics as a reflection of reality presumes that there | is a pause button on the universe. | | This sounds more like your personal biases than a fact about | mathematics. | hans1729 wrote: | I suppose the "as a reflection of reality" is the catch in | that phrase. | | Is p built into the fabric of that which is absolute? Which | statements are we able to make about axioms that hold | outside of our reference frame? | zmgsabst wrote: | Pi describes relationships and outcomes we see in reality | when actions are performed -- and that abstract relation | explains the commonality in many experiences. | | Eg, tossing match sticks relates to pi. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJVivjuMfWA | dhon_ wrote: | This reminds me of the method of calculating Fourier transform by | refracting light through a prism and reading off the different | frequencies. You get the "calculation" for free. | SilasX wrote: | Like how mirrors "compute" the (appropriately defined) reverse | of an image? | V-2 wrote: | This perspective fits nicely with the simulation theory. | | If we accept it, for argument's sake, then what's happening is | essentially delegating the computation to the ultra-meta- | computer that runs the simulation. | Syzygies wrote: | Whether the universe is a simulation is unknowable, but the | universe could consist of thought. If so, this research is | dangerous; like the Trinity nuclear test, the conflagration | could alter our neighborhood of the universe. | | I had a pretty convincing revelation last night that the | simulation was run by insects. I could only get back to sleep | by ridiculing myself for such a derivative thought. Or is | there a reason it's universal? | schmeckleberg wrote: | I think Diaspora by Greg Egan covers some of this territory | | ...that or the much older idea that if the whole universe | is the dream of a dragon (or a butterfly or Chuang Chou) | then let's not do anything that's too startling or | implausible so we don't wake them up and end it all! | arrow7000 wrote: | It also fits nicely with the universe just being | mathematically consistent | V-2 wrote: | This misses the "computation" (being shifted from one layer | to another) aspect though. | | Universe being mathematically consistent and being | simulated are completely orthogonal concepts. | arrow7000 wrote: | I understood your comment to be an argument in favour of | the simulation hypothesis. So my comment says that that | doesn't work. | | On second reading though it seems like all you're | proposing is a mental model for 'analog' computation; | that it's like outsourcing the computation to a lower | level of hardware. Then yes I agree with that. | alliao wrote: | oh god, I can see it coming. elaborated analogue music player | for a special price. it's using nothing but light. the fuzzy | output will be it's feature; sought after by misdirected | audiophiles... | nurettin wrote: | This is solarpunk material. | stackbutterflow wrote: | Is it calculation or simulation? | Banana699 wrote: | Not much difference here, Calculation (or, more generally, | Computation) is the manipulation of abstract symbols | according to pure rules that may or may not represent | concrete entities, e.g. the simplification of polynomials | according to the rule of adding like powers. | | Simulation is when we manipulate things (concrete or | abstract) according to the rules that govern other concrete | things, e.g. pushing around balls in circles to (highly | inaccurately) represent the orbit of planets around a star. | | Not all calculation is simulation, and not all simulation is | calculation, but there exists an intersection of both. | | The key trick you can do with that last category is that when | the physical system you're simulating is controllable enough, | you can use the correspondence in the other direction: Use | the concrete things to simulate the abstract things. It's | simulation, because you're manipulating concrete entities | according to the rules that govern other entities (who happen | to be abstract),but what you're doing also amounts to doing a | calculation with those abstract entities. | [deleted] | ulnarkressty wrote: | An even better one - holding an image at the focal point of a | lens produces its Fourier transform at the focal point on the | other side of the lens[0]. It is used for "analog" pattern | matching[1]. There is an interesting video explaining this on | the Huygen Optics Youtube channel[2]. | | [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_optics | | [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_correlator | | [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9FZ4igNxNA | Enginerrrd wrote: | Analog computers are pretty awesome! | | Say you take a standard slide rule with two log scales, and | want to do a division problem, x/y. There's more than one way | to do it. I can think of at least 3. One of them won't just | compute x/y for your particular x, but will compute x/y for ANY | x. | | Accuracy is always the issue with analog stuff, but they sure | are neat. | | Another fun one to contemplate is spaghetti sort. With an | analog computer of sufficient resolution, you can sort n | elements in O(n). You represent the numbers being sorted by | lengths of spaghetti. Then you put them on the table straight | up and bring a flat object down until it hits the first and | largest piece of spaghetti. You set that down and repeat the | process, selecting the largest element of the set every time. | | I've always liked the idea of hybrid systems. I envision one | where you feed the analog part of your problem with a DAC, then | get a really close answer up to the limit of your precision | from the analog component, then pass that back out to an ADC | and you have a very very close guess to feed into a digital | algorithm to clean up the precision a bit. I bet you could | absolutely fly through matrix multiplication that way. You | could also take the analog output and adjust the scale so it's | where it needs to be on the ambiguous parts, then feed it back | into your analog computer again to refine your results. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | > spaghetti sort | | Isn't this how very old sorting machines with punch cards | worked? I'm thinking of the kinds used by the census or | voting machines in the late 1800s or early 1900s. | TremendousJudge wrote: | I think they used radix sort, which is also pretty cool | hbarka wrote: | Where does a doctor's stethoscope fit in? Other examples: | Mechanic's stethoscope for diagnosing an engine, airplane | vibrations to foretell maintenance, bump oscillations to | grade quality of a roadway. | teshier-A wrote: | Surprised to see no mention of LightOn and its Optical | Processing Unit ! | willhinsa wrote: | The universe is already thinking for itself! It wrote this | comment and built this website, after all. | tabtab wrote: | And trying to expel humans after seeing them in action. | mrtesthah wrote: | Human thought _is_ the universe thinking. Life, inclusive of | humanity, is contiguous with deterministic physical reality. | rbn3 wrote: | This instantly reminded me of the paper "pattern recognition in a | bucket"[0], which I've seen referenced a lot when I first started | reading about AI in general. I only have surface-level knowledge | about the field, but how exactly does what's described in the | article differ from reservoir computing? (The article doesn't | mention that term, so I assume there must be a difference) | | [0] | https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221531443_Pattern_R... | inasio wrote: | Relevant: DARPA last year launched a program (competition) to | build analog solvers that can solve (some) optimization problems | [0]: | | [0]: https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2021-10-04 | mensetmanusman wrote: | Humans are the universe thinking for itself. | bobsmooth wrote: | Sure, but I'd prefer a computer without self-doubt. | willis936 wrote: | A system without introspection would never self-improve. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | Does evolution introspect? did the universe evolve the | gecko with or without introspection? | willis936 wrote: | Evolution as a system does not improve, no. Evolution was | superseded by self-improving (human thought-based) | systems. | | A gecko born did not self-improve. The species average | offspring improved externally via natural selection. | guerrilla wrote: | > Evolution was superseded by self-improving (human | thought-based) systems. | | Strictly correct, but consider that our ideas are also | going evolution. What we learn depends on our | environment. We retain what's useful and don't what's not | and we also pass it down through generations... This is | pretty much natural selection, just at a different level. | mensetmanusman wrote: | "A gecko born did not self-improve." | | This might not necessarily be true, for example, a | genetic defect that a gecko figures out how to leverage | through self improvement (to feed itself) might then be | passed on to offspring. | the_other wrote: | Some self doubt is critical for right thinking. | hackernewds wrote: | some self-doubt is right for critical thinking | guerrilla wrote: | Well, all animals are... | jb1991 wrote: | Indeed, it is said that "life is the universe's way of looking | back at itself." | spideymans wrote: | Then perhaps the best way to make the universe think for us is | to produce a biological computer, similar in nature to a brain. | ben_w wrote: | This is more like "Surprise! Turns out panpsychism was the | right answer all along!" | lolive wrote: | Ok. But then: | | - what is the question? | | - what is the answer? | ben_w wrote: | > what is the question? | | Is the simulation hypotheses more or less plausible? | | > what is the answer? | | Supren supren, suben suben, maldekstra dekstra, maldekstra | dekstra, bee aye komenco. ;) | porkphish wrote: | Magic 2.0? | ben_w wrote: | Jes, kvankam mi ankau povis paroli Esperanto antaue legi | la libro (or rather, listened; audiobook), so when that | line happened I recognised it even faster than Martin | did. | danbruc wrote: | _Is the simulation hypotheses more or less plausible?_ | | It has always been implausible and it will most likely | stay that way. | mckirk wrote: | How so? | ClumsyPilot wrote: | When was this conclusion reached, i totally mised the | announcement | danbruc wrote: | Right when it was formulated. In the best case - assuming | the simulation hypothesis does not have any flaws, i.e. | there are no hidden assumptions or logical flaws or | something along that line - the simulation hypothesis | provides a trilemma, i.e. one of three things has to be | true. That we are living in a simulation is only one of | them and arguably the most implausible one. | | But let us just assume we continue exploring and | inspecting our universe and one day we discover that | space is quantized into small cubes [1] with a side | length of a thousand Planck lengths just like a voxel | game world. Now what? Are we living in a simulation? Is | this proof? | | Actually, you probably would not be any wiser. How would | you know whether the universe just works with small | voxels and we wrongly assumed all the time that space is | continuous or whether this universe is a simulation using | voxels and somewhere out there is the real universe with | continuous space? You do not know what a real universe | looks like, you do not know what a simulated universe | looks like, you just know what our universe looks like. | How will you ever tell what kind our universe is? | | [1] This is purely hypothetical, I do not care about how | physically realistic this is, what kind of problems with | preferred reference frames or what not this might cause, | let us just pretend it makes sense. | mrwnmonm wrote: | The simulation hypothesis is so cute. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Your post is not putting forward any argument about | Plausability or Probability, you are just saying that the | theory is not falsifiable / we will never fins out, like | argument about God. | | The argument about probability goes something like this: | there is only one real universe, where an advanced | species like us would evolve. Eventually we would create | multiple simulations. If advanced specicies evolves in a | simulation, they create their own simulation. | | Therefore there is only one real universe, but many | simulations, so chances are we are in a simulation. It | also could explain why we are alone in the universe. | | Holographic theory suggest that the whole universe coupd | be a hologram around a 4D black hole or something, so | also appears to hint in this direction | danbruc wrote: | _Your post is not putting forward any argument about | Plausability or Probability [...]_ | | Maybe not with enough emphasis, but I did - the other two | options of the trilemma seem much more plausible. | | _[...] you are just saying that the theory is not | falsifiable / we will never fins out, like argument about | God._ | | This depends. If your believe includes, say, god reacts | to prayers, then we can most certainly test this | experimentally. But overall the two may be somewhat | similar - unless god or the creator of the simulations | shows up and does some really good magic tricks, it might | be hard to tell one way or another. | | _The argument about probability goes something like | this: there is only one real universe, where an advanced | species like us would evolve._ | | You do not know that there is only one universe. You do | not know that we qualify as an advanced species with | respect to cosmological standards. | | _Eventually we would create multiple simulations._ | | Will we? What if we go extinct before we reach that | capability? What if we decided that it is unethical to | simulate universes? What if this is not feasible | resource-wise? | | _If advanced specicies evolves in a simulation [...]_ | | Will they? Can they? I think it is a pretty fair | assumption that simulations in general require more | resources than the real system or provide limited | fidelity. If you want to simulate the mixing of milk in a | cup of coffee, you will either need a computer much | larger than the cup of coffee or on a smaller computer | the simulation will take much longer than the real | process or you have to use some crude fluid dynamics | simulation that gives you an acceptable macroscopic | approximation but ignores all the details like positions | and momenta of all the atoms. Therefore I would say that | any simulation can at best simulate only a small fraction | of the universe the simulation is running in and it is | not obvious that a small part would be enough to produce | simulated humans. | | _[...] they create their own simulation._ | | Everything from above applies, there are reasons why this | might not happen. And with every level you go down the | issues repeat - can and will they create simulations? And | the simulated universes are probably shrinking all the | time as well as you go deeper. | | _Therefore there is only one real universe, but many | simulations, so chances are we are in a simulation._ | | Sure, if there are many simulations and only one real | universe, then it might be likely that we are in a | simulation. Even then there are some caveats like for | example each simulation also has to be reasonably big and | contain billions of humans or they can have fewer humans | but then there must be more of the simulations, otherwise | it might still be more likely that we are not in any of | the simulations. | | Anyway, this all only applies if there is such a set of | nested simulations, then we are probably simulated, but | the real question is how likely is the existence of this | nested simulations? Is it even possible? | | _It also could explain why we are alone in the | universe._ | | We do not know that we are alone. And even if we are | alone, there are more reasonable explanations then a | simulation. And who even says that we would be alone in a | simulation? | | _Holographic theory suggest that the whole universe | coupd be a hologram around a 4D black hole or something, | so also appears to hint in this direction_ | | It does not. The holographic principle just suggest that | for certain theories in n dimensions there is a | mathematically equivalent theory with only n-1 | dimensions. The best known example is the AdS/CFT | correspondence which shows that certain theories of | quantum gravity based on string theory have a | mathematically equivalent formulation as conformal field | theories on the boundary of the space. Whether this is a | mathematical curiosity or whether this has some deep | reasons is everyone's guess. | mensetmanusman wrote: | "Right when it was formulated." | | False, like many 'Beyond the bang' physics hypothesis, | these are non falsifiable claims that can still be | interesting to discuss since humans can think about such | abstractions. | | (Note that Godel et al. showed that non-falsifiable does | not necessarily mean false). | zackmorris wrote: | The Last Question: | http://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html | | The Last Answer: | https://www.scritub.com/limba/engleza/books/THE-LAST- | ANSWER-... | rgrs wrote: | yes | falcor84 wrote: | - "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?" | | -"forty two" | hprotagonist wrote: | [[ liebniz chuckling in the background ]] | subless wrote: | Well Tesla did say and I quote "If you want to find the secrets | of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and | vibration." | | AND | | "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will | make more progress in one decade than in all the previous | centuries of its existence." | | I think we'll make great progress if we eat those words. | FredPret wrote: | I wonder if we'll end up with a hyper-intelligent shade of the | colour blue | discreteevent wrote: | When I first came across machine learning it reminded me of | control theory. And sure enough if you search around you get to | articles like this [1] saying that neural networks were very much | inspired by control theory. The bit of control theory that I was | taught way back was about analog systems. I have no idea if the | electronic circuit mentioned at the end is even like a classical | control system but it does feel a bit like something coming | around full circle. | | [1] https://scriptedonachip.com/ml-control | EricBurnett wrote: | I've long been enamored with the idea of learning from analog | computers to build the next generation of digital ones. In some | perspective all our computers are analog, of a sort - today's | computer chips are effectively leveraging electron flow through a | carefully arranged metal/silicon substrate, with self- | interference via electromagnetic fields used to construct | transistors and build up higher order logic units. We're now | working on photonic computers, presumably with some new property | leading to self interference, and allowing transistors/logic | above that. | | "Wires" are a useful convenience in the electron world, to build | pathways that don't degrade with the passing of the elections | themselves. But if we relax that constraint a bit, are there | other ways we can build up arrangements of "organized flow" | sufficient to have logic units arise? E.g. imagine pressure waves | in a fluid -filled container, with mini barriers throughout | defining the possible flow arrangement that allows for | interesting self-reflections. Or way further out, could we use | gravitational waves through some dense substance with carefully | arranged holes, self-interfering via their effect on space-time, | to do computations for us? And maybe before we get there, is | there a way we could capitalize on the strong or weak nuclear | force to "arrange" higher frequency logical computations to | happen? | | Physics permits all sorts of interactions, and we only really use | the simple/easy-to-conceptualize ones as yet, which I hope and | believe leaves lots more for us to grow into yet :). | 323 wrote: | > _It employs two-dimensional quasiparticles called anyons, | whose world lines pass around one another to form braids in a | three-dimensional spacetime (i.e., one temporal plus two | spatial dimensions). These braids form the logic gates that | make up the computer. The advantage of a quantum computer based | on quantum braids over using trapped quantum particles is that | the former is much more stable._ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_quantum_computer | sandworm101 wrote: | Electricity is also a wave. The wires are essentially | waveguides for particles/waves traveling at near luminal | speeds. So in theory anything done with electricity could be | replicated using other waves, but to make it faster you would | need waves that travel faster than electrons through a wire. | Photons through a vacuum might be marginally faster, but | pressure waves though a fluid would not. | | If bitflips are a problem in a modern chip, imagine the number | of problems if your computer ran on gravity waves. The | background hum of billions of star collisions cannot be blocked | out with grounded tinfoil. There is no concept of a faraday | cage for gravity waves. | lupire wrote: | Gravity is a poor source of computation because it is | incredibly weak - 10^-43 vs electron force. Even if you add | several powers of 10 for all the metal wire harness and | battery chemistry around the electrons, you still get far | more usable force per gram from electricity and metal than | you do from gravity. | otikik wrote: | Think Big. | | A computer that's also a Galaxy. | alephxyz wrote: | With latency measurable in millennias | cjsawyer wrote: | Have we checked to see if this is already the case? | stochtastic wrote: | Nitpick: gravity waves [1] pretty universally refer to waves | in fluid media in which the restoring force is buoyancy. | Ripples in spacetime are usually called _gravitational_ | waves. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave | altruios wrote: | A faraday cage for gravity waves would be awesome... I mean - | computers are nice - but you hit the nail on the head for | revolutionary tech. | markisus wrote: | Is it even theoretically possible to waveguide gravity? The | electric field can be positive and negative, but gravity is | unsigned -- there is no anti-gravity. This is probably | related to what you're saying about faraday cages. | whatshisface wrote: | Gravitational waves can either stretch or contract | spacetime relative to a baseline. Since the Einstein field | equations are nonlinear, I think gravitational waves can be | "refracted" when traveling through a region with a high | baseline curvature, so maybe waveguides are possible. | Gravitational lenses do lens gravitational waves in | addition to light. | Optimal_Persona wrote: | It's not unsigned, if you look on the back it says "Come | together, you all. Love, The Universe." ;-) | robotresearcher wrote: | Gravity is antigravity if you run time backwards. | huachimingo wrote: | Its like procedural generation: hide the data into a | formula/algorithm, so it makes less space. | | Replace "data" with "computation", and "formula" with physical, | less expensive processes. | toss1 wrote: | The subheader: >>Physicists are building neural networks out of | vibrations, voltages and lasers, arguing that the future of | computing lies in exploiting the universe's complex physical | behaviors. | | I.e., analog can do insane levels computing (it's had 13+ billion | years to evolve, but digital computing is easier to think about, | so, like the hapless drunkard looking for his lost key under the | streetlight because it'll be easier to see (instead of where he | most likely dropped it), we pursue digital because it's easier to | reason about. TBF, digital does yield bigger results much more | quickly and flexibly, but some really interesting problems will | likely require further exploration of the analog computing space. | [deleted] | momenti wrote: | I wonder what kind of speedup can we expect from neuromorphic | computing within the next 5-10 years? | shadowgovt wrote: | This is why real computer science is pencil-and-paper work, not a | sub-field of electronics. | | Electronics is great because we can create some specific fast, | reproducible physical phenomena with it (logic gates, symbol | storage and retrieval). But any physical principle that can | create fast, reproducible phenomena would be just as valuable for | computing. _Diamond Age_ posits smart-books that operate on | atomic-scale "rod logic" mechanical phenomena. Cells do | something that looks an awful lot like computation with protein | chemistry. | lisper wrote: | A better title would have been: how to make the universe do (a | whole lot of) math for us [1]. What so-called neural networks do | should not be confused with thinking, at least not yet. | | And the fact that we can get the universe to do math for us | should not be surprising: we can model the universe with math, so | of course that mapping works in the other direction as well. And | this is not news. There were analog computers long before there | were digital ones. | | --- | | [1] ... using surprisingly small amounts of hardware relative to | what a digital computer would require for certain kinds of | computations that turn out to be kind of interesting and useful | in specific domains. But that's not nearly as catchy as the | original. | hans1729 wrote: | assertion: thinking is synonymous with computation (composed | operations on symbolic systems). | | computation is boolean algebra. | | -> therefore, doing math _is_ to think. | | I'm not trying to be pedantic, I just don't think using | intuitive associations with words helps clarifying things. If | your definition for thought diverges here, please try to | specify how exactly: what is thought, then? Semi-autonomous | "pondering"? Because the closer I look at it, that, too, | becomes boolean algebra, calling eval() on some semantic | construct, which boils down to symbolic logic. | | What you may mean is that "neural" networks are performing | statistics instead of algebra, but that's not what the article | is about, is it? | mannykannot wrote: | > If your definition for thought diverges here, please try to | specify how exactly: what is thought, then? | | This is a burden-shifting reply of "so prove me wrong!" to | anyone who feels that your assertion lacks sufficient | justification for it to be taken as an axiom. | DANK_YACHT wrote: | The original commenter also made a random assertion: "doing | math is not thinking." The person you're responding to | attempted to provide a definition of "thinking." | mannykannot wrote: | The original commenter's comment does not contain this | claim. I suppose it could have been edited, though by the | time I saw it, I believe the window for editing had | closed. | | Neither what lisper actually says nor what hans1729 | replied with are random assertions, and, furthermore, | they are each entitled to assert whatever axioms they | like - but anyone wanting others to accept their axioms | should be prepared to assume the burden of presenting | reasons for others to do so. | meroes wrote: | Is a ruler and compass computation? They don't operate | symbolically and are computers. | sweetdreamerit wrote: | > I don't think using intuitive associations with words helps | clarify things Sincere question: do you _think_ that "think | using intuitive associations with words" can be safely | translated to "compute using intuitive associations with | words"? I don't _think_ so. Therefore, even if thinking is | also computing, reducing thinking to boolean algebra is a | form of reductionism that ignores a number of _emergent_ | properties of (human) thinking. | hans1729 wrote: | Fair question/point. Yes, I do think so. | | The intuitive model associated with some variable/word as a | concept relates to other structures/models/systems that it | interfaces with. Just because the operator that accesses | these models with rather vague keys (words) has no clear | picture of what exactly is being computed on the surface, | doesn't mean that the totality of the process is not | computation. It just means that the emergent properties are | not mapped into the semantic space which the operator (our | attention mechanisms) operates on. From my understanding, | the totality I just referred to is a graph-space, it | doesn't escape mathematics. Then again, I can't _know_ or | claim to do so. | troyvit wrote: | We can model the universe with math because math is what we | have to model the universe with. The fact that it can talk back | to us in math is amazing because to me it means that math is | not a dead end cosmically, which means we might be able to use | it to communicate with other intelligences after all. | misja111 wrote: | > we can model the universe with math, so of course that | mapping works in the other direction as well. | | This is not so obvious as you make it appear. For instance, we | can model the weather for the next couple of days using math. | But letting the weather of the next couple of days calculate | math for us doesn't work very well. The reason is that we can't | set the inputs for the weather. | | This problem comes up in various forms and shapes in other | 'nature computers' as well. Quantum computers are another | example where the model works brilliantly but setting the pre- | and side conditions in the real world is a major headache. | goldenkey wrote: | You can use the weather or a bucket of water or well, any | sufficiently complex chaotic system, as a reservoir computer | though: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_computing | yetihehe wrote: | Reservoir computing still needs to provide input. How do | you input into weather? And if you find that you indeed can | provide inputs to weather, you should ask if you _should_ | provide inputs into weather. Using weather as a computer | might simply be unethical and could get you killed (after | some angry farmers come knocking on your lab door because | you ruined their harvest). | lisper wrote: | I didn't mean to imply that implementing it should be easy. | Only that it should be unsurprising that it is possible. | zmgsabst wrote: | > What so-called neural networks do should not be confused with | thinking, at least not yet. | | I disagree: | | I think neural networks are learning an internal language in | which they reason about decisions, based on the data they've | seen. | | I think tensor DAGs correspond to an implicit model for some | language, and we just lack the tools to extract that. We can | translate reasoning in a type theory into a tensor DAG, so I'm | not sure why people object to that mapping working the other | direction as well. | V__ wrote: | This internal language, if I'm not mistaken, is exactly what | the encoder and decoder parts of the neural networks do. | | > in which they reason about decisions | | I'm in awe of what the latest neural networks can produce, | but I'm wary to call it "reasoning" or "deciding". NNs are | just very complex math equations and calling this | intelligence is, in my opinion, muddying the waters of how | far away we are from actual AI. | andyjohnson0 wrote: | > I'm in awe of what the latest neural networks can | produce, but I'm wary to call it "reasoning" or "deciding". | | I think humans find it quite difficult to talk about the | behaviour of complex entities without using language that | projects human-like agency onto those entities. I suspect | its the way that our brains work. | Banana699 wrote: | Indeed, I'm an atheist who absolutely loves biology. I | adore all the millions upon millions of tiny and huge | complex machines that Evolution just spits left and right | merely by being a very old, very brutal, and very stupid | simulation running for 4 billion years straight on a | massive, inefficiently-powered distributed processor. | | And I can never shake the unconscious feeling that all | this is _purposeful_ , the idea that all this came by | literally throwing shit at a wall and only allowing what | sticks to reproduce warps my mind into unnatural | contortions. The sheer amount of _order_ that life is, | the sheer regularity and unity of purpose it represents | amidst the soup of dead that is the universe. It 's... | unsettling? | | Which is why I personally think the typical "Science^TM" | way of argument against traditional religions misguided. | Typical religons already make the task of refuting them a | thousand time easier by assuming a benevolent creator, | which a universe like ours, with a big fat Problem Of | Evil slapped on its forehead, automatically refutes for | you. | | But the deeper question is whether there is/are | Creator(s) at all: ordered, possibly-intellignet (but | most definitely not moral by _any_ human standards) | entities, which spewed this universe in some manner that | can be approximated as purposeful (or even, perhaps, as a | by-product of doing a completely unrelated activity, like | they created our universe on accident while,or as a | result of, doing another activity useful to them, like | accidental pregnancies to us humans). This is a far more | muddled and interesting question and "Science" emites | much more mixed signals than straight answers. | zmgsabst wrote: | > NNs are just very complex math equations | | So is the equation modeling your brain. | | > This internal language, if I'm not mistaken, is exactly | what the encoder and decoder parts of the neural networks | do. | | The entire ANN is also a model for a language, with the | "higher" parts defining what terms are legal and the | "lower" defining how terms are constructed. Roughly. | | > I'm in awe of what the latest neural networks can | produce, but I'm wary to call it "reasoning" or "deciding". | | What do you believe you do, besides develop an internal | language in response to data in which you then make | decisions? | | The process of ANN evaluation is the same as fitting terms | in a type theory and producing an outcome based on that | term. We call that "reasoning" in most cases. | | I don't care if submarines "swim"; I care they propel | themselves through the water. | | > calling this intelligence is, in my opinion, muddying the | waters of how far away we are from actual AI | | Goldfish show mild intelligence because they can learn | mazes; ants farm; bees communicate the location of food via | dance; etc. | | I think you're the one muddying the waters by placing some | special status on human like intelligence without | recognizing the spectrum of natural intelligence and that | neural networks legitimately fit on that spectrum. | tdehnel wrote: | But the spectrum is an illusion. It's not like humans are | just chimpanzees (or ants or cats) with more compute. | | Put differently, if you took an ant or cat or chimpanzee | and made it compute more data infinitely faster, you | wouldn't get AGI. | | Humans can do something fundamentally unique. They are | _universal explainers_. They can take on board any | explanation and use it for creative thought instantly. | They do not need to be trained in the sense that neural | nets do. | | Creating new ideas, making and using explanations, and | critiquing our own thoughts is what makes humans special. | | You can't explain something to a goldfish and have it | change its behavior. A goldfish isn't thinking "what if I | go right after the third left in the maze". | | Credit to David Deutsch for these ideas. | zmgsabst wrote: | > Put differently, if you took an ant or cat or | chimpanzee and made it compute more data infinitely | faster, you wouldn't get AGI. | | Citation needed. | | > They can take on board any explanation and use it for | creative thought instantly. They do not need to be | trained in the sense that neural nets do. | | This is patently false: I can explain a math topic people | can't immediately apply -- and require substantial | training (ie, repeated exposure to examples of that data) | to get it correct... if they ever learn it at all. Anyone | with a background in tutoring has experienced this claim | being false. | | > Creating new ideas, making and using explanations, and | critiquing our own thoughts is what makes humans special. | | Current AI has approaches for all of these. | tdehnel wrote: | >Citation needed. | | That's a lazy critique. With a lack of concrete evidence | either way, we can only rely on the best explanation | (theory). What's your explanation for how an AGI is just | an ant with more compute? I've given my explanation for | why it's not: an AGI would need to have the ability to | create new explanatory knowledge (i.e. not just | synthesize something that it's been trained to do). | | As an example, you can currently tell almost any person | (but certainly no other animal or current AI) "break into | this room without destroying anything and steal the most | valuable object in it". Go ahead and try that with a | faster ant. | | On your tutoring example, just because a given person | doesn't use their special capabilities doesn't mean they | don't have them. Your example could just as easily be | interpreted to mean that tutors just haven't figured out | how to tutor effectively. As a counter example, would you | say your phone doesn't have the ability to run an app | which is not installed on it? | | >Current AI has approaches for all these. | | But has it solved them? Or is there an explanation as to | why it hasn't solved them yet? What new knowledge has AI | created? | | I know as a member of a ML research group you _really | want_ current approaches to be the solution to AGI. We | are making progress I admit. But until we can explain how | general intelligence works, we will not be able to | program it. | [deleted] | TaupeRanger wrote: | Variations of this exact argument happen in every single | comment thread relating to AI. It's almost comical. | | "The NN [decides/thinks/understands]..." | | "NNs are just programs doing statistical computations, | they don't [decide/think/understand/" | | "Your brain is doing the same thing." | | "Human thought is not the same as a Python program doing | linear algebra on a static set of numbers." | | And really, I can't agree or disagree with either premise | because I have two very strong but very conflicting | intuitions: 1) human thought and consciousness is | qualitatively different from a Python program doing | statistics. 2) the current picture of physics leaves no | room for such a qualitative difference to exist - the | character of the thoughts (qualia) must be illusory or | epiphenomenal in some sense | zmgsabst wrote: | I don't think those are in conflict: scale has a quality | all its own. | | I'm not claiming AI have anything similar to human | psychology, just that the insistence they have _zero_ | "intelligence" is in conflict with how we use that word | to describe animals: they're clearly somewhere between | bees /ants and dogs. | TaupeRanger wrote: | The conflict is that, at one point (the Python program) | there are no qualities - just behaviors, but at some | point the qualities (which are distinct phenomena) | somehow enter in, when all that has been added in | physical terms is more matter and energy. | V__ wrote: | > by placing some special status on human like | intelligence without recognizing the spectrum of natural | intelligence | | You're right, yes, if you see it as the whole spectrum, | sure. I was more thinking about the colloquial meaning of | an AI of human-like intelligence. My view was therefore | from a different perspective: | | > So is the equation modeling your brain. | | I would argue that is still open to debate. Sure, if the | universe is deterministic, then everything is just one | big math problem. If there is some natural underlying | randomness (quanta phenomena etc.) then maybe there is | more than deterministic math to it. | | > We call that "reasoning" in most cases. | | Is a complex if-else-structure reasoning? Reasoning, to | my, implies some sort of consciousness, and being able to | "think". If a neural network doesn't know the answer, | more thinking won't result in one. A human can (in some | cases) reason about inputs and figure out an answer after | some time, even if they didn't know it in the beginning. | zmgsabst wrote: | > I was more thinking about the colloquial meaning of an | AI of human-like intelligence. | | Then it sounds like we're violently agreeing -- I | appreciate you clarifying. | | I try to avoid that mindset, because it's possible that | AI will become intelligent in a way unlike our own | psychology, which is deeply rooted in our evolutionary | history. | | My own view is that AI aren't human-like, but are | "intelligent" somewhere between insects and dogs. (At | present.) | | > If a neural network doesn't know the answer, more | thinking won't result in one. | | I think reinforcement learning contradicts that, but | current AIs don't use that ability dynamically. But GAN | cycles and adversarial training for, eg, go suggest that | AIs given time to contemplate a problem can self-improve. | (That is, we haven't implemented it... but there's also | no fundamental roadblock.) | pseudolus wrote: | I believe one of the earliest applications incorporating this | line of thought was MONIAC, the Monetary National Income Analogue | Computer, which used water levels to model the economy [0]. | There's a short youtube documentary on its history and operation. | [1] | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC | | [1] | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAZavOcEnLg&ab_channel=Reser... | | https://youtu.be/rAZavOcEnLg?t=101 (shows operation of MONIAC) | wardedVibe wrote: | Analog computers are from the 19th century; they were used to | decompose signals using the Fourier transform, since it's | easy(ish) to get a bunch of different frequency oscillators. | They used them for tides and differential equations. | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-01 23:01 UTC)